Richard’s Selected Writings
It is well-known that the war between the sexes is a power-battle. It is kept alive by the woman’s identification with Love as being the Ultimate and by the man’s identification with Authority as being the Ultimate. Both the power of Love and Authority vie for supremacy … Love has its intrinsic Authority and Authority has its intrinsic Love. Both provide the illusion of security so desperately sought for by billions of people throughout the ages. Whenever we trip over an issue of man-woman differences and find ourselves falling back into our gender identities we notice, while looking at each other over a gulf of separation, a marked lack of equity and mutual intimacy between us. Then again, in our long periods of mutual intimacy, we experience that neither Authority nor Love plays any role. Can we contemplate a life together where intimacy and equity are paramount? Wherein the power of Love and Authority become irrelevant? Any Authority precludes equity ... and therefore intimacy. Any Love precludes intimacy ... and therefore equity.
It all stems from separation. There is a separation of male and female from each other by gender identification as ‘man’ and ‘woman’ – two distinct social identities – leading to a localised discontent and resentment, causing the battle between the sexes. Then there is the separative ‘I’ or ‘me’ - a psychological and psychic identity – forever alienated from one’s body and from the world of people things and events, leading to a generalised discontent and resentment, causing wars between tribal groups. To end the separative social identity, one can whittle away at all the social mores and psittacisms … those mechanical repetitions of previously received ideas or images, reflecting neither apperception nor autonomous reasoning. One can examine all the beliefs, ideas, values, theories, truths, customs, traditions, ideals, superstitions ... and all the other schemes and dreams. One can become aware of all the socialisation, of all the conditioning, of all the programming, of all the methods and techniques that were used to control what one finds oneself to be … a wayward ego and compliant soul careering around in confusion and illusion. A ‘mature adult’ is actually a lost, lonely, frightened and cunning psychological entity overlaying a psychic ‘being’. However, it is never too late to start in on uncovering and discovering what one actually is.
I have finished my meal and am leaning back at my ease, enjoying an after-dinner cigarette. I am pleased with what I have done so far in order to arrive here at this stage in my relationship. There is more to come, but if my experience thus far is any indication then the future looks even rosier than what I have right now. I could never believe that it was impossible to live together, man and woman, in perfect peace and harmony, so I will leave no stone unturned in the quest to achieve this goal. Some might say I am mad to risk my relationship, again and again, to prove the impossible to be possible, but I demur. Nothing is achieved without some risk ... and the ultimate goal is well worth any perceived peril. It all depends upon how willing and determined one is to solve life’s problems once and for all. To be convinced that one’s destiny lies here on earth – and that it is within reach of those who are prepared to go all the way – is the essential prerequisite for assured success. This conviction I have in plenty.
It is certainly possible. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Two
In the first couple of hours of having met my companion and I formed an agreement that was to be the basis of the relationship. We were both convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it was possible for a free male and female to live together in perfect peace and harmony. There was an agreement made to be scrupulously honest with ourselves and with the other, however stupid and ridiculous it would seem at the time. One has to explore to find out, uncover to discover ... one knows in advance that one will, inevitably, make mistakes from time to time.
One therefore resolves to never hold a grudge, nor to ‘sweep anything under the carpet’. One will not let ‘sleeping dogs lie’, and one understands that it will be trying, at times, but because of the purity of the infinitude of this universe, as experienced in the peak experience, one can tap into a pure intent. That is one’s guiding light, as it were. Overall we have had a lot of fun finding out about ourselves and each other and the ‘Human Condition’. The moment one sees a ‘truth’ for what it is – a belief – one finds that it has already disappeared because of the seeing, leaving nothing behind, except perhaps a vague memory that one once thought like that. The disappeared ‘truth’ seems like a bit of a dream ... was it actual? The next ‘truth’ – because that is how one has learnt to call beliefs – automatically presents itself in the normal course of one’s daily life. One cannot but welcome it, because one’s life becomes clearer and cleaner and more pure. This ‘seeing’ is pure awareness, based upon pure intent born out of the peak experience. It is not an intellectual ‘seeing’, nor is it emotional ... passions play no part in becoming free. Passions are only needed for defending one’s belief in the status-quo. With pure seeing one becomes more and more fascinating, once one has the ‘knack’ of it.
Life itself becomes a wondrous experience. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Six
The early-morning mist has lifted and although the sun is shining, it is weak and fitful in an over-cast sky. The day has remained cold and the fire’s hearty warmth has enticed us to breakfast on the heaped cushions in front of it. I am warm, cosy and feeling very good about myself, as I relax back amidst the debris of the meal. Faintly, from a distance but coming closer, I hear the engine of a car as it negotiates the winding driveway up to this remote house in the country. By the time we have cleared away the plates, the car has stopped outside the French doors. I put the kettle back on the stove to boil water for a pot of tea and invite the visitors in. It is a married couple I have talked with several times before ... they have separated twice prior to knowing them and seem to be well on their way to a third. They have expressed interest in how I am relating and have told me that they feel inspired by our discussions. This time they want to talk about a very personal matter. He has been having an affair and although it is finished – and she says she has forgiven him – he still feels punished on a daily basis; their sex-life is non-existent.
He is of the opinion that she cannot really forgive him, although she says that she has ... and that keeps him feeling guilty. She maintains that she is not punishing him, explaining that it takes a while to trust him again. She does not feel like making love; she is unable to have ‘just sex’ without love and trust. I query her use of the word ‘just’; it being pejorative indicates that she is putting sex down as being nothing worthwhile on its own. Sex for sex’s sake is what we experience as being extremely enjoyable. I have, some time ago, stripped sex of all its mystique and am well pleased to have dared to do so. Pure sex is utter satisfaction ... for me the immediate is the ultimate and the relative the absolute. My relationship is not based upon love and trust ... a condition which both shocks and intrigues him. He, of course, wants to know what it is based upon. I pause for a while to consider their situation.
The question is: do they consider it possible for a man and a woman to live together in perfect peace and harmony? They think that ‘it would be nice’ and they would like to hope that it could be possible ... but I see that they are not too sure. It is an uneasy question for them. Of course ‘it would be nice’ but what I am asking is do they consider it to be actually possible for them? For unless this is their goal, their first priority in their relationship, they will not have the will, the determination and preparedness to pursue the matter. The moment that one sees and knows that it is possible, a total focus, a single-mindedness, comes into being. One will then find the ways and means to rid oneself of whatever is standing in the way; one will see through whatever is preventing one from being peaceful and thus living in perfect harmony. There is a complete dedication of one’s life to achieving this goal.
My relationship is based upon knowing that this is possible. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Three
I am interested to hear what they have to say concerning what is the most immediate thing standing in the way of them living together in peace and harmony. She feels that it is this affair ... and the lack of trust. I remind her that this is not the first time they have had a separation and enquire as to what steps they took in the past to come back together again. She starts in on a long and involved tale about how she had been going through a bad patch, feeling discontented, feeling depressed ... she had a fling. She asks me not to ‘get it wrong’ for she really regrets it, but it was because she was not feeling appreciated ... ‘un-loved’, she supposes. She realised that she had hurt her husband and felt strongly that she wanted to be back with him. So she had ended the ‘fling’ feeling rather silly. However, she now suspects that her husband has just had an affair to pay her back … which he denies at first and then allows that it may have played a part in it all. He adds that she had lost interest in sex long before his affair. To which she again charges him with wanting her for just sex. We are back to the ‘just sex’ complaint again. I ask if they see a pattern, a definite cycle in all this?
The pattern they see is that when the relationship goes stale they start looking around outside the marriage for what they want. And then, feeling bad about this course of action, they come back together. As they tell their story they feel that it all sounds a bit neurotic. Of course, one can call it whatever one likes, but will that actually eliminate the problem? It is all learned behaviour, reactionary behaviour ... and what has been learned can be un-learned. The cycle I have discovered lies in how humans have been taught to deal with this learned behaviour. It starts at the beginning of the relationship: A man and a woman are initially separate, they meet, fall in love, feel totally accepted, appreciated and loved for being who they are ... everything is rosy. They want to spend all their time together, the sex is marvellous … until the love diminishes, the ‘honey-moon’ is over, and they start feeling their separation once more. This brings frustration, they blame each other for not being loving enough. ‘You never bring me flowers any more’, or ‘You are no longer the sexy woman you once were’.
One starts to become irritated by the other’s character traits – which one used to find so endearing when one were in love – one starts to niggle, one begins to pick fault, one attempts to hurt the other. One picks a fight, after which there is often a silent going your separate ways. One feels bad. The one who ostensibly started the fight begins to feel sorry: if there is sufficient remorse, the other will forgive. The love flows again, one makes promises, trust is restored – one has ‘made-up’ – until next time, that is. This entire process of love, hurting, anger, remorse, forgiveness and then love again is learned behaviour. And nobody seems to question the validity of this time-honoured process. Does it work? Does it produce a lasting intimacy? Does it produce perennial peace and harmony? Does it produce perfection?
Is there something original, authentic, genuine, that will? Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Three
There follows a baffled silence; they both look puzzled and a trifle uncomfortable. She protests that everybody does this ... that it is ‘normal’ human behaviour. He is silent for a while longer, worrying away at something. He remembers that I said that my relationship is not based on love and trust … have I then, discovered something original? He sees that humans have been copying, without ever doubting its value, what everyone has been doing. This cyclic procedure is being blindly reproduced by couples all over the world, who teach it, by precept and example, to their children ... as it was taught to them by their parents. And the worst thing is that it does not work anyway. At best it produces a temporary illusion of togetherness via love. When love inevitably diminishes, as it does over time, the whole cycle is repeated with less and less ‘success’. Why is it that it does not work?
‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are in two separate camps; it is as if they are two different races. So they start from separation ... and love seems to promise to bring them together, to provide the intimacy they all long for. But my question is: why are humans separate to start of with? Is it an actual separation – apart from the physical differences – or have humans been trained into an artificial separation? Is one not conditioned to think – and feel – as a ‘man’ and as a ‘woman’? Has one not taken on a gender identity and think and feel it to be ‘me’? So is there not an artificial entity, an ‘I’, that one takes to be me as I actually am? One’s most intimate ‘being’ is a fiction anyway, so any gender identity overlaid is equally false. If ‘I’ am false, artificial, then any connection – a bridge – between two psychological entities can only be as artificial as the separation itself.
Love is this bridge. Love is artificial. Being artificial it needs constant stimulus to keep it ‘alive’. Therefore, the moment it starts to sag, the cycle automatically swings into action; frustration, niggles, fights, hurt, resentment, remorse, repentance, forgiveness, promises ... then back to love and trust again. Although everybody promises each time, in contrition, to forgive and forget, they never do. The promise to forgive and forget is never carried out. The hurt, frustration and anger is unconsciously stored away, adding to the already existing resentment that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ feel toward each other for being separative in the first place. This entire process has no chance of producing anything other than an artificial intimacy.
Having distinguished the artificial from the actual, the need for upholding and defending the gender identity vanishes. ‘Man’ disappears, ‘woman’ disappears ... ‘I’ as a gender identity disappear. I have thus uncovered and discovered a more actual intimacy. This more actual intimacy far surpasses the artificial togetherness produced by love and separation. Where there is no separation – which is false anyway – there is no need for love with all its side effects. Sex, released from its burden of bringing the couple together in love and trust, is now able to be what it actually is: delightful and delicious sensate fun.
It is sensible to live in peace and harmony. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Three
This remarkable life, this exquisite world, is truly fabulous … made all the more fabulous by the complete harmony between my companion and I … between male and female.
I do not use the word ‘complete’ lightly. I have lost count of the numerous times that people have told me that such harmony – this perfect harmony – is just not possible. They have told me, time and time again, that I was too idealistic ... it was a ‘pie in the sky’, or one was ‘wishing for the moon’. Some were even of the opinion that any harmony should only be in moderation otherwise life would become boring … disagreement, apparently, ‘adds spice to life’! Others warned me that ‘too much of a good thing is bad for you’, or that ‘one should accept one’s lot in life’, or that one ‘should not be perfectionistic, you will end up lonely’. The trite and hackneyed phrases were endlessly forthcoming. I would listen with one ear to their alarmist advice; their proverbial guidance and sinister superstition I consigned to the waste-bin. I would not give in to the peer pressure prudence based upon the sageness of ‘old wife’s tales’ and conveyed to me with well-meant but ill-considered confusion.
Yet my relationship is now complete. I have an exemplary life with my companion; what I talk of is not Theory or Idea, it is a fact. My wisdom comes out of my day-to-day experience. I have unravelled the mess that is orthodox ‘human’ relationship … I not only know what I speak of, I demonstrate it daily in my living. Some people now say we are lucky to have met each other and do not want to hear me when I say that luck has nothing to do with it ... for we put in the first years of being together in an intense exploration and delicious discovery of what it is that prevents consistent ease and harmony betwixt male and female. As nothing is gained without diligence and application, born of pure intent, I could not give in to the status-quo ... we did not compromise. Dedication and perseverance were required to reach this wonderful completion. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Five
Nobody, to my knowledge, has made the distinction between the physical male-female and the psychological ‘man’-’woman’ ... regardless of the fact that the psychological ‘man’-’woman’ is an easily observable stereotype, anyway. Without this distinction there can only be confusion. Physical intimacy is, of course, problematic so long as these stereotypical psychological entities remain intact ... creating, therefore, separation. At best the feeling of love can, temporarily, bring these entities together in an illusion of intimacy. Yet it is simply a contradiction in terms to desire intimacy but all the while keeping an area of oneself private; that area wherein one calls oneself ‘man’ or ‘woman’. At the core of this area is one’s identity ... that ‘who’ one thinks and feels to be ‘me’. If the other trespasses into this area, ‘my’ very identity is under attack. This, one thinks and feels, is ‘me’. ‘I’ must stiffly resist any change. Of course ‘I’, as ‘man’ or ‘woman’ need constant affirmation from other ‘men’ or ‘women’ … from ‘my’ camp. Among ‘men’ this is called ‘male bonding’; among ‘women’ it is called ‘Sisterhood’. Literally, from birth onward – pink for baby girls, blue for baby boys – humans know of no other social identity than that created for them by this ongoing process.
This creation, this psychological entity, is what one takes to be ‘me’ ... and ‘I’ will defend it with ‘my’ life whenever necessary. Yet all over the world people are complaining endlessly about loneliness; about how ‘no one will love me for myself’, or ‘no one will accept me as I am’. Yet ‘I’, as ‘man’ or ‘woman’ am a creation. Created by society, by other ‘men’ and ‘women’, ‘I’ am as artificial as they are. This body has been encumbered with an artificial psychological gender identity. Being a fiction, of course one feels alienated ... alone and lonely. Such a composite figure can only need to belong with other, likewise composite, creatures. In order to belong, though, one must conform to the dictates of those who created ‘me’. As they do not like their own creation, they will never like ‘me’, completely. Thus arises the necessity for concession and compromise.
All couples resent themselves and their partners for the very compromises that they are proud to have made in order to keep their marriage intact and maintain their specious intimacy. This intimacy proves to be inhibiting and delusive. It shows itself to be deceitful not only to the other but to oneself, so I wanted to know every aspect of myself and the other. Obviously, when I speak of an actual intimacy, I am not talking about the typical intimacy as it is generally understood by all and sundry. The closest one can normally come to an actual intimacy is in rare moments of sexual togetherness wherein love and affection are temporarily absent and there is sex for the sake of sex and nothing else. When this occurs – albeit randomly – one can have the courage of one’s convictions, born out of the PCE, and go for the actual intimacy that underpins all relationship. It is a risk well worth taking. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Five
What then am ‘I’ as ‘man’ or ‘woman’? ‘I’ am an accumulation of all the social mores: the traditions, the customs, the beliefs and the valued characteristics that ‘my’ culture imbued ‘me’ with so long ago … and still continues to do so. In other words, ‘I’ am the end product of society … a society that is unable to live in peace. Any study of history will quickly show that no society, anywhere on earth, has managed to live in peace. At best there can be an uneasy truce. And these societies, through an intensive acculturation process, created ‘me’, as ‘man’ or ‘woman’, a cultured social identity. If ‘I’ continue to believe that who ‘I’ really am is this creation – a creature that has no chance at all of being peaceful – ‘I’ have no choice but to remain eternally trapped in ‘my’ camp.
Society has created two opposing camps ... the ‘man’s camp and the ‘woman’s camp. To move out of one’s designated camp is to be a traitor to one’s own kind. One will be condemned and ostracised. This procedure is easily observed among very young children; even today boys are scorned if they be ‘cissies’ and girls if they be ‘tomboys’. Humans are actively and vigorously discouraged from being what they actually are by their parents, their teachers and any other interfering adult. Even their own peer group! All these people have had the same thing done to them and they insist that ‘I’ turn out identically. Sexual hang-ups are inculcated from a very young age: girls are taught by example and precept to be ashamed and afraid of their sexuality, whilst boys are subtly lauded for their sexual prowess. If it did not have such serious consequences it could be seen as a hilarious process ... they want ‘me’ to turn out to be as neurotic and argumentative and unhappy as they are. This procedure is called socialisation.
Almost every trace of naiveté humans were born with has been rigorously beaten and seduced out of them until they arrive at adulthood not knowing what they can be, in actuality. The war between the sexes has thus been carried on unto the next generation. This has been going on for centuries; peoples today are being dictated to and ruled by their ancestors; people long dead are preventing the modern human from being happy and living in peace and harmony. When one realises this, one initially feels stupid. One feels stupid because, after all, one co-operated in this ongoing process. Maybe one can be partially excused because it all started when one was too young to know any different, but one has sold oneself out, nevertheless. However, it is never too late to know. Once it is realised that ‘I’ am not actually me, a sensate human being, ‘I’ am keen to start unravelling the whole sorry mess. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Five
For me the war between the sexes does not exist. ‘I’, as a gender identity have vanished. Therefore I do not feel the need to belong to any institution, be it marriage, family, peer group, tribe, religion, or nation, in order to bolster and sustain a culturally created social identity. This psychological entity is one who believes in ‘safety in numbers’ ... and in ‘the more the merrier’. Yet the resultant wars within and between marriages; within and between families; within and between peer groups; within and between tribes; within and between religions; within and between nations all occur – and continue to occur – because something as basic as the war between the sexes has never before been dissolved.
Rather than addressing a root cause, people prefer to align themselves to a group, which, being bigger than their own puny self, gives them the illusion of a stronger sense of social identity. At the same time it serves to justify the living out of the resentment, the frustration, the aggression and the hatred, all of which stem from believing oneself to be the culturally created gender identity … a social construct. The stubborn refusal to see and relinquish this lonely creation is reason enough for calling it perversity. I am not perverse; I saw and relinquished. Without a gender identity I have discovered an actual intimacy.
With actual intimacy the war between the sexes can be over. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Five
It is late-morning in mid-autumn and I am travelling in a car through densely forested country along narrow bitumen roads which sometimes degenerate into gravel before reverting back to a sealed surface again. It is a small and nimble car, yet it boasts an able air-conditioner busily blowing cool air into the interior – it being a hot morning – and it competently negotiates the steep twists and turns as it climbs higher into the mountain range. Large rain-forest trees loom lofty, forming an overhead canopy for the car to pass under. The sun is dappling shadows over the white bonnet of the vehicle as it flashes through the damp woodlands that are a delectation to the eyes. Understorey palms are reaching grandly up into the shade; some are festooned with creepers of varied description and a deep leaf-mould carpets the forest floor. As the car rounds a particularly twisting bend a large lizard crossing the road gives a startled leap to the safety of the roadside and ahead some parakeets coruscate brilliantly as they swoop low from one side into the other. Altogether it is a splendid morning … and there is a gladness in easily cruising along my way, quiescently enjoying the peace and ease between me and the new woman in my life, who is driving the car. We are going on a picnic.
My latest companion is several years younger than my other companion and enjoys all that is involved in driving a car expertly and confidently. She is an adventurous person whom I have known for a number of years now and our relationship has grown into something very personal over time. She is long past being a mere tyro in actualism, for our association over the years has produced remarkable results. Long gone are the days of constant regression into normalcy: she spends much of her time being here – here is this moment of being alive – where happiness and harmony reside. The three-way alliance over this period has grown to such an extent that all of us are appreciative of being able to now live together agreeably and freely. It is no ordinary ménage à trois, however; it is an alliance based firmly on a triple aspiration to ensure a freedom for everybody … and we are all well-pleased to be participating in such a bold venture. Our escapade has raised the odd eyebrow; ruffling the occasional feather it has caused a flurry of talk around town, but we have a delightfully cheeky approach to such discussion. When all is said and done, it is of nobody’s business but our own. What we are doing is an exhilarating essay into hitherto unknown territory, yet I am supremely confident of an ability to enjoy whatever eventuates … because of the pure intent born out of the perfection of this universe we all live in. After all, I am living in an actual freedom and the others are both enthusiastic participators in a flourishing actualism.
I have no doubts that actualism is for anybody and everybody … anybody, that is, who is willing to go all the way into what is possible for a human being to actualise. And what is possible is a purity that is way beyond ‘normal’ human expectations; actualism is vastly superior to anything that has ever gone before in human history … and there has been a plenitude of ‘isms’ to precede this venture. However, all of those ‘Tried and True’ philosophies and doctrines have failed again and again to produce the promised effect. Actualism works because it produces the desired results along the way … the goal in life being to live freely now, not off in some distant future. After all, this moment is the only moment of being alive; this is the only moment to feel good in, for the past is no longer, the future is not yet and the present is but an illusion sandwiched betwixt the two. If one examines one’s life carefully, one will quickly ascertain that it is always this moment … and if one is not feeling good right now, then that is a signal that something is amiss. Consequently, one can rectify the situation and ‘get back on track’ as swiftly as possible … the aim being to have ‘feeling good’ as a bottom line in one’s life.
The essence of actualism is to constantly ask oneself this: How is one experiencing this moment of being alive? Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Thirty-Four
The Third Alternative
(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)
Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.